Lakers Rumors: Rashard Lewis Is Exactly Who L.A. Needs to Spark Second Unit
Rashard Lewis can kill three birds with one stone.
Should L.A. sign Lewis?
The Los Angeles Lakers’ athleticism is laughable, their three-point shooting ability is nonexistent and their bench is a complete joke.
For a power forward—his most effective position—Lewis just happens to be athletic, a corner-three sniper and willing to lead a second unit. While he wouldn’t be the league-shaking acquisition that fans are desperate for, Lewis would without a doubt improve the Lakers and they must sign him.
Marc J. Spears of Yahoo! Sports reported that L.A. is one of the many teams (Miami Heat, Boston Celtics, New York Knicks and Atlanta Hawks being the others) that are interested in Lewis (via Hoopsworld).
Even if the Lakers re-sign Jordan Hill, they still need another big to create the ideal frontcourt rotation. Hill and Lewis would provide them with exactly what Jim Buss and Mitch Kupchak thought was the best-case scenario for Josh McRoberts and Troy Murphy when they signed the duo last summer.
McRoberts fell out of the rotation because all he could do was hustle, but Hill showed the ability to hustle and be a beast on the boards. Murphy got benched because he was a designated three-point shooter that couldn’t hit threes. Lewis is a superior scorer and athlete and unlike Murphy, he’d actually make defenses pay for leaving him wide open.
If you believe Lewis is washed up because of his poor season last year with the Washington Wizards, I think there has never been a more appropriate time to play the needs-a-change-of-scenery card. He was forced to play out of position on the wing. And for crying out loud, he was forced to play with JaVale McGee, Nick Young and Andray Blatche for half a season.
In Los Angeles, if used correctly—as a floor-spreading 4—he’d flourish and provide a much-needed scoring spark off the bench.
David Daniels is a featured columnist at Bleacher Report and a syndicated writer.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?